If a failed save against a monster’s special trait leads to full damage and happens to also apply a condition, that isn’t a save against that condition. It’s a save against full damage and the condition is incidental and entirely predicated on failing the save against the damage. I don’t think any bonuses to saves against a certain condition would apply.
And thus we see the problem, because the rules don't actually tell you which way to interpret things.
This is 5e, the “streamlined” edition of D&D. When in doubt, apply Occam's razor. What’s simpler, calling for a [whatever] save against damage and then telling people the results and any potential conditions, or calling for saves against a combined damage and condition and explaining the potential outcomes and having people hunt to see if they have advantage or not and debating on whether or not the advantage should apply to the save against the damage too?
This is 5e, the “streamlined” edition of D&D. When in doubt, apply Occam's razor. What’s simpler, calling for a [whatever] save against damage and then telling people the results and any potential conditions, or calling for saves against a combined damage and condition and explaining the potential outcomes and having people hunt to see if they have advantage or not and debating on whether or not the advantage should apply to the save against the damage too?
This is 5e, the version of D&D that things the way you achieve rules-light is with incomprehensible rules.
This is 5e, the “streamlined” edition of D&D. When in doubt, apply Occam's razor. What’s simpler, calling for a [whatever] save against damage and then telling people the results and any potential conditions, or calling for saves against a combined damage and condition and explaining the potential outcomes and having people hunt to see if they have advantage or not and debating on whether or not the advantage should apply to the save against the damage too?
This is 5e, the version of D&D that things the way you achieve rules-light is with incomprehensible rules.
Occam's Razor tells you to minimize the number of variables, which is... irrelevant to this discussion.
🤦♂️ Not if one removes the idea that the save is against the condition as a variable. Reduce it to simply a save against damage with an ancillary rider effect and bingo-bango, looka tha,’ it’s a simple answer: “No.”
Kotath, you got it backwards. I didn’t “simply sets anything to the answer [I] prefer,” I set it to what I believe to be the simplest answer and drew my conclusion accordingly.
As to your second point, each Spell/Action/Special Trait in question tells you what the target is saving against, most frequently for monster Actions/Special Traits it’s full damage with a potential for a rider. Since specific beats general, each specific monster Action/Special Trait overrules any such general conclusion as the one you made. If the main effect of the Trait/Action is the condition (as indicated by the order in which the effects are listed) then any Advantage on the corresponding saving throw would be applicable, like for many spells. For the vast majority of the saving throws being debated here, they are saves for half damage “and no other effect” or “and are not [condition]” (or some similar wording), it heavily implies that the effect/condition is predicated on the target taking full damage. Therefore the save is against the damage and not the effect/condition itself.
🤦♂️ Not if one removes the idea that the save is against the condition as a variable. Reduce it to simply a save against damage with an ancillary rider effect and bingo-bango, looka tha,’ it’s a simple answer: “No.”
That's.... not even close to an answer. Occam's Razor just doesn't say what you think it says.
In other words: K.I.S.S. It. (Keep It Stupid Simple.)
That's a good rule when writing rules, but is irrelevant to interpreting them.
5e is just bad at writing clear rules. I'm not sure why, WotC most certainly has people who know how to do so, I feel like the writers prioritized the appearance of simplicity over actual simplicity.
5e is just bad at writing clear rules. I'm not sure why, WotC most certainly has people who know how to do so, I feel like the writers prioritized the appearance of simplicity over actual simplicity.
Well, yes, the MTG rules are clear and unambiguous. They're also divided into just over 900 sections. Of course, many of those sections are subdivided into subsections -- and further divided after that. And every time Wizards releases a new set, they have to patch the rules.
I don't think this is the standard to which I want to hold D&D, at all.
Well, yes, the MTG rules are clear and unambiguous. They're also divided into just over 900 sections. Of course, many of those sections are subdivided into subsections -- and further divided after that. And every time Wizards releases a new set, they have to patch the rules.
I don't think this is the standard to which I want to hold D&D, at all.
MTG needs that many rules because it doesn't have a DM. It's entirely reasonable to say "we're leaving X up to the DMs discretion" to cut out a lot of edge cases, but things like this question aren't edge cases.
5e is just bad at writing clear rules. I'm not sure why, WotC most certainly has people who know how to do so, I feel like the writers prioritized the appearance of simplicity over actual simplicity.
Well, yes, the MTG rules are clear and unambiguous. They're also divided into just over 900 sections. Of course, many of those sections are subdivided into subsections -- and further divided after that. And every time Wizards releases a new set, they have to patch the rules.
I don't think this is the standard to which I want to hold D&D, at all.
Shit, if the US Tax code was as clear and unambiguous as the M:tG rules set we wouldn’t need accountants. Hells, if the rest of the law was as clear and unambiguous as M:tG’s rules, and patched as frequently, the Supreme Court’s justices’ jobs would be more cut and dry and less up to “interpretation.”
🤦♂️ Not if one removes the idea that the save is against the condition as a variable. Reduce it to simply a save against damage with an ancillary rider effect and bingo-bango, looka tha,’ it’s a simple answer: “No.”
That's.... not even close to an answer. Occam's Razor just doesn't say what you think it says.
Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, or Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami), also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae), is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred. The idea is frequently attributed to English Franciscan friar William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), a scholastic philosopher and theologian, although he never used these words. This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypothesesabout the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions, and that this is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions.
5e is just bad at writing clear rules. I'm not sure why, WotC most certainly has people who know how to do so, I feel like the writers prioritized the appearance of simplicity over actual simplicity.
Now on that we can agree. I have long been openly critical of Crawford’s decision making when it comes to how 5e has been written.
If a failed save against a monster’s special trait leads to full damage and happens to also apply a condition, that isn’t a save against that condition. It’s a save against full damage and the condition is incidental and entirely predicated on failing the save against the damage. I don’t think any bonuses to saves against a certain condition would apply.
That would violate the RAW. Whether or not it would violate the RAI is generally beyond the scope of this board, but if someone wants to try to find a JC tweet on it (probably difficult, because the RAW is so unambiguous, but hey, people have asked JC many a question with an apparently obvious answer), I'll bet 5 internet points it would violate the RAI. Abilities that work the way you suggest would:
Escalate to a very extreme degree the complexity of the rules, because now a DM has to adjudicate for every save-or-consequence ability which consequences count for resistive abilities and which consequences don't.
On top of this base escalation, it gets even worse because there's no guidance from WOTC on adjudicating it, so every DM is stumbling in the dark when making this judgment you're saying they now have to make.
Wildly imbalance resistive abilities in a way that would be completely DM-dependent; for example, under some DMs, this would nerf poisoned resistance without nerfing charmed resistance, while under other DMs, all 3 other possibilities of both nerfed, neither nerfed, and poisoned not nerfed but charmed nerfed would occur.
That means on top of making life significantly harder for DMs, your ruling makes life significantly harder for WOTC when they try to balance prewritten adventures and modules, as they have no way of knowing e.g. how the poison they let the party have access to earlier in the module will, in practice, impact the monster they gave poison resistance to later in the module.
I would argue the above quality of life losses for both DMs and WOTC suggest that your ruling violates the RAI.
If a failed save against a monster’s special trait leads to full damage and happens to also apply a condition, that isn’t a save against that condition. It’s a save against full damage and the condition is incidental and entirely predicated on failing the save against the damage. I don’t think any bonuses to saves against a certain condition would apply.
That would violate the RAW. Whether or not it would violate the RAI is generally beyond the scope of this board, but if someone wants to try to find a JC tweet on it (probably difficult, because the RAW is so unambiguous, but hey, people have asked JC many a question with an apparently obvious answer), I'll bet 5 internet points it would violate the RAI. Abilities that work the way you suggest would:
Escalate to a very extreme degree the complexity of the rules, because now a DM has to adjudicate for every save-or-consequence ability which consequences count for resistive abilities and which consequences don't.
On top of this base escalation, it gets even worse because there's no guidance from WOTC on adjudicating it, so every DM is stumbling in the dark when making this judgment you're saying they now have to make.
Wildly imbalance resistive abilities in a way that would be completely DM-dependent; for example, under some DMs, this would nerf poisoned resistance without nerfing charmed resistance, while under other DMs, all 3 other possibilities of both nerfed, neither nerfed, and poisoned not nerfed but charmed nerfed would occur.
That means on top of making life significantly harder for DMs, your ruling makes life significantly harder for WOTC when they try to balance prewritten adventures and modules, as they have no way of knowing e.g. how the poison they let the party have access to earlier in the module will, in practice, impact the monster they gave poison resistance to later in the module.
I would argue the above quality of life losses for both DMs and WOTC suggest that your ruling violates the RAI.
What?!? No dude, it makes it simpler. Each “save or consequence” effect tells you exactly how it works. Take the Giant Lightning Eel’sLightning Jolt Action as an example:
Lightning Jolt (Recharge 5–6). One creature the eel touches within 5 feet of it outside water, or each creature within 15 feet of it in a body of water, must make a DC 12 Constitution saving throw. On failed save, a target takes 13 (3d8) lightning damage. If the target takes any of this damage, the target is stunned until the end of the eel’s next turn. On a successful save, a target takes half as much damage and isn’t stunned.
The stunned condition is clearly predicated on the damage, not the saving throw failure. That’s👆clearly a save against damage with an ancillary condition.
Now, let’s take a look at the Warhorse’sTrampling Charge Special Trait:
Trampling Charge. If the horse moves at least 20 feet straight toward a creature and then hits it with a hooves attack on the same turn, that target must succeed on a DC 14 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone. If the target is prone, the horse can make another attack with its hooves against it as a bonus action.
Halflings "have advantage on saving throws against being frightened."
The dex save for Jaws of Semuanaya is against the piercing damage, not being frightened.
If you take the damage, the fear is imposed automatically; there's no saving throw against the fear;
So, there's no advantage.
But, if that chaps you, I would suggest allowing the halfling a second save against the fear (not at advantage, a Wisdom save at the same DC as the whatever the other save was). I don't see that a halfling's brave trait should allow it advantage in avoiding damage.
The rules for Jaws of Semuanaya specifically state that the save is against the damage and that if you fail that save you are also frightened. Clearly the condition is a secondary effect to the damage. No Advantage on the save.
You don’t save “against Dexterity,” you “make a Dexterity saving throw” meaning you save with Dexterity.
I know exactly what it says, I looked it up prior to making my post:
Jaws of Semuanya (Recharge 5–6). The subchief invokes the primal magic of Semuanya, summoning a spectral maw around a target it can see within 60 feet of it. The target must make a DC 13 Dexterity saving throw, taking 22 (5d8) piercing damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. A creature that fails this saving throw is also frightened until the end of its next turn.
It explicitly states that the save is to prevent taking full damage. (Hence why I said it’s “against the damage.”) Then it explicitly says that if the creature fails the save to prevent the full damage it “is also frightened.” (Hence why I said that if you fail the save against the damage that “you are also frightened.” Note the emphasis I put on the word “also.”)
3. I have ignored nothing. I simply state that the save is to prevent taking full damage and that if the save is failed the condition is “also” applied as a secondary effect.
A creature entering Walmart to buy butter must make a DC 13 Wisdom saving throw, wasting 22 (5d8) minutes wandering the aisles on a failed save, or half as much time on a successful one. A creature that fails this saving throw also loses focus and notices an irresistible deal on a loaf of bread.
No Kotath, if they fail the save against full damage they are still frightened, even if immune to the damage type. That’s because they failed the save. It has nothing to do with whether or not they take the damage. But the save isn’t to prevent the condition, it’s to reduce the damage, the condition is just an additional effect of failing the save against the damage.
Notes: Please check your autocorrect to make sure that users nicknames aren't "corrected"
No Kotath, if they fail the save against full damage they are still frightened, even if immune to the damage type. That’s because they failed the save. It has nothing to do with whether or not they take the damage. But the save isn’t to prevent the condition, it’s to reduce the damage, the condition is just an additional effect of failing the save against the damage.
Hi Sposta, OP here. After reading through all the comments and looking around a bit online, I think I have to disagree with you. The action's text has two clauses: "A creature that fails this saving throw takes damage" and "A creature that fails this saving throw is frightened". These two clauses can be reshuffled and reordered without changing the meaning of the action. Here is one possible way of doing so: "The target must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature that fails this save is frightened and takes 5d8 damage. On a successful save, the creature takes half as much damage and is not frightened."
It is certainly a bit odd that not scaring easy would make you more nimble to avoid a spectral crocodile mouth, but this is how the rules read.
This is 5e, the “streamlined” edition of D&D. When in doubt, apply Occam's razor. What’s simpler, calling for a [whatever] save against damage and then telling people the results and any potential conditions, or calling for saves against a combined damage and condition and explaining the potential outcomes and having people hunt to see if they have advantage or not and debating on whether or not the advantage should apply to the save against the damage too?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is 5e, the version of D&D that things the way you achieve rules-light is with incomprehensible rules.
As I said: “when in doubt, apply Occam’s razor.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Occam's Razor tells you to minimize the number of variables, which is... irrelevant to this discussion.
🤦♂️ Not if one removes the idea that the save is against the condition as a variable. Reduce it to simply a save against damage with an ancillary rider effect and bingo-bango, looka tha,’ it’s a simple answer: “No.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
In other words: K.I.S.S. It. (Keep It Stupid Simple.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Kotath, you got it backwards. I didn’t “simply sets anything to the answer [I] prefer,” I set it to what I believe to be the simplest answer and drew my conclusion accordingly.
As to your second point, each Spell/Action/Special Trait in question tells you what the target is saving against, most frequently for monster Actions/Special Traits it’s full damage with a potential for a rider. Since specific beats general, each specific monster Action/Special Trait overrules any such general conclusion as the one you made. If the main effect of the Trait/Action is the condition (as indicated by the order in which the effects are listed) then any Advantage on the corresponding saving throw would be applicable, like for many spells. For the vast majority of the saving throws being debated here, they are saves for half damage “and no other effect” or “and are not [condition]” (or some similar wording), it heavily implies that the effect/condition is predicated on the target taking full damage. Therefore the save is against the damage and not the effect/condition itself.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That's.... not even close to an answer. Occam's Razor just doesn't say what you think it says.
That's a good rule when writing rules, but is irrelevant to interpreting them.
5e is just bad at writing clear rules. I'm not sure why, WotC most certainly has people who know how to do so, I feel like the writers prioritized the appearance of simplicity over actual simplicity.
Well, yes, the MTG rules are clear and unambiguous. They're also divided into just over 900 sections. Of course, many of those sections are subdivided into subsections -- and further divided after that. And every time Wizards releases a new set, they have to patch the rules.
I don't think this is the standard to which I want to hold D&D, at all.
MTG needs that many rules because it doesn't have a DM. It's entirely reasonable to say "we're leaving X up to the DMs discretion" to cut out a lot of edge cases, but things like this question aren't edge cases.
Shit, if the US Tax code was as clear and unambiguous as the M:tG rules set we wouldn’t need accountants. Hells, if the rest of the law was as clear and unambiguous as M:tG’s rules, and patched as frequently, the Supreme Court’s justices’ jobs would be more cut and dry and less up to “interpretation.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I’m pretty sure I got the gist.
I find it advantageous to apply the same logic to interpreting something that the originator presumably used to write it.
Now on that we can agree. I have long been openly critical of Crawford’s decision making when it comes to how 5e has been written.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That would violate the RAW. Whether or not it would violate the RAI is generally beyond the scope of this board, but if someone wants to try to find a JC tweet on it (probably difficult, because the RAW is so unambiguous, but hey, people have asked JC many a question with an apparently obvious answer), I'll bet 5 internet points it would violate the RAI. Abilities that work the way you suggest would:
I would argue the above quality of life losses for both DMs and WOTC suggest that your ruling violates the RAI.
What?!? No dude, it makes it simpler. Each “save or consequence” effect tells you exactly how it works. Take the Giant Lightning Eel’s Lightning Jolt Action as an example:
The stunned condition is clearly predicated on the damage, not the saving throw failure. That’s👆clearly a save against damage with an ancillary condition.
Now, let’s take a look at the Warhorse’s Trampling Charge Special Trait:
Now that👆is clearly a save Vs prone.
See how simple it is?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The rules seem pretty crystal clear to me:
But, if that chaps you, I would suggest allowing the halfling a second save against the fear (not at advantage, a Wisdom save at the same DC as the whatever the other save was). I don't see that a halfling's brave trait should allow it advantage in avoiding damage.
The rules for Jaws of Semuanaya specifically state that the save is against the damage and that if you fail that save you are also frightened. Clearly the condition is a secondary effect to the damage. No Advantage on the save.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
No Kotath, no.
It explicitly states that the save is to prevent taking full damage. (Hence why I said it’s “against the damage.”) Then it explicitly says that if the creature fails the save to prevent the full damage it “is also frightened.” (Hence why I said that if you fail the save against the damage that “you are also frightened.” Note the emphasis I put on the word “also.”)
3. I have ignored nothing. I simply state that the save is to prevent taking full damage and that if the save is failed the condition is “also” applied as a secondary effect.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A creature entering Walmart to buy butter must make a DC 13 Wisdom saving throw, wasting 22 (5d8) minutes wandering the aisles on a failed save, or half as much time on a successful one. A creature that fails this saving throw also loses focus and notices an irresistible deal on a loaf of bread.
No Kotath, if they fail the save against full damage they are still frightened, even if immune to the damage type. That’s because they failed the save. It has nothing to do with whether or not they take the damage. But the save isn’t to prevent the condition, it’s to reduce the damage, the condition is just an additional effect of failing the save against the damage.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hi Sposta, OP here. After reading through all the comments and looking around a bit online, I think I have to disagree with you. The action's text has two clauses: "A creature that fails this saving throw takes damage" and "A creature that fails this saving throw is frightened". These two clauses can be reshuffled and reordered without changing the meaning of the action. Here is one possible way of doing so: "The target must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature that fails this save is frightened and takes 5d8 damage. On a successful save, the creature takes half as much damage and is not frightened."
It is certainly a bit odd that not scaring easy would make you more nimble to avoid a spectral crocodile mouth, but this is how the rules read.